IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the limitations of judicial review in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The petitioner joined as a trainee officer of the Coast Guard as Assistant Commandant. She was employed as a Deputy Commandant of the Coast Guard, Mumbai and subsequently retired from her services on December 25, 2021. She was posted in 88 ACV Squadron, Haldia during the relevant point of time when the subject incidents allegedly took place. The respondent no. 7 was the Commanding Officer of the Coast Guard at Haldia at the relevant juncture. The petitioner complains that she was sexually harassed by respondent no. 7. The complaint was taken up by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The ICC, upon giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned, dismissed the complaint on all counts, against which the present writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner.

2. At the outset, the respondents raise an objection as to maintainability of the writ petition since a previous writ petition preferring the same challenge was dismissed for default. It is argued that the principle embodied in Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions as well. Since at the time of dismissal of the previous writ petition, the respondents were represented but the petitioner was not, the petitioner is debarred from preferring a similar challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Dealing with the said objection, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that during pendency of the present writ petition, the previous petition was restored at the instance of the petitioner and was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. Thus, there is no bar to the present case being decided on its own merits. The maintainability of the present writ petition was left open by the co-ordinate Bench restoring the previous writ petition to be decided by this Court. Moreover, it is argued that there was no decision arrived at on merits in the previous writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent no. 7 harassed the petitioner in several ways. The respondent no. 7 used to stare at the petitioner inappropriately and tried to peep into her room. At one instance, when the petitioner was operating a craft from the pilot?s seat, the respondent no. 7, who was the co-pilot, blocked an instrument called the Inclinometer from the petitioner’s sight. The said blockage was deliberate and also formed a component of the harassment. The respondent no. 7 had allegedly held that the petitioner’s hand and tried to put his arm around her shoulder.

5. Another component of the alleged harassment was that the respondent no. 7 addressed the petitioner inappropriately as “baby” and “sweety”. When confronted by the petitioner, the respondent no. 7 admittedly did not repeat the same. However, it is submitted that there were sexual overtones in the said utterances.

6. It is next contended by the petitioner that the respondent no. 7 attempted to recall the petitioner from leave on November 25, 2019 and also on May 2, 2019. That said attempts coincided with the petitioner’s birthday and her date of marriage. It is argued that the said attempts were deliberate, to harass the petitioner.

7. The respondent no. 7, the petitioner alleges, had deliberately ensured that the petitioner fails in an assessment carried out for the position of “Captain of Craft”. A Board Officers was constituted for such test deliberately, which acted on the dictates of the respondent no. 7 to see to it that the petitioner did not pass the examination. Duty rosters were also fixed deliberately to cause inconvenience to the petitioner.

8. It is argued that the efforts of the respondent no. 7 all along were to hinder the petitioner’s progress in her profession deliberately in view of his attempts at sexual harassment having been thwarted by the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent no. 7 also saw to it that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner for not embarking a vessel, which wa